R.I.P. Global Warming...The Convenient Truth...it's not hot!

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby Memorex » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:24 pm

Maybe I would have said "...to show accurate results." or "...to allow for the deficiency." or "...to correct the results." To say hide the decline is quite odd. Mix that in with the requests to delete data - in relation to contradictory data - and other things and I'm sorry, it makes me feel very skeptical. Again, not saying everything is wrong and false, but this sure doesn't help. Sure doesn't build confidence in me.

Add to all of that the additional issues popping up at other research facilities...

Add to that the fact that the lead dude steps down. No one, and i mean no one, in power steps down from anything unless it is about to get a lot worse. Maybe I am cynical, but that seems to be the way these things go.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:17 pm

squirt1 wrote:We have oil but the Dems want the votes of the enviromentalists, so we can't drill for much of our own oil. Today's technology is WAY better than 30 yrs ago. But wait, Russia is going to try to drill in the Artic and China to our south in the Guld and off Cuba. Wake up ! We do not have the tech yet to do w/o oil. Thank God we have a hundred yrs of natural gas.


Here we go again. Now you're going to try to tie in oil drilling to your anti-global warming scenario. Republicans are going to try to manipulate this into setting back environmental protection laws 50 years and deregulating controls over industry.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby Behshad » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:59 am

Image
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby S2M » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:03 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:Image



Dude, I'm just reporting whats out there. I report, you decide.


Isn't this a Fox News philosophy? :evil:
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Behshad » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:06 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Behshad wrote:Image



Dude, I'm just reporting whats out there. I report, you decide.


I have no problems with your reporting. But (mis)representing your reports as FACT is what I dont agree with 8)
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby BobbyinTN » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:24 am

This whole expose' has been proven a lie. The hackers took the words they wanted, edited them and then tried to pass them off as "truth". Of course the right wing bullshit machine will believe anything.


Do your research before you post such tripe again.
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby lights1961 » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:27 am

BobbyinTN wrote:This whole expose' has been proven a lie. The hackers took the words they wanted, edited them and then tried to pass them off as "truth". Of course the right wing bullshit machine will believe anything.


Do your research before you post such tripe again.


and the left wind doesnt? PLEASE... MAN can not destroy the planet... as a whole... we destroy each other and living things... but the sun will rise tomorrow the stars will light up at night... the planets will align themselfs throught MAN KIND... whether we survive is the issue not whether earth will survive...


R
Rick
lights1961
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5362
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:33 am

Postby Behshad » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:45 am

lights1961 wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:This whole expose' has been proven a lie. The hackers took the words they wanted, edited them and then tried to pass them off as "truth". Of course the right wing bullshit machine will believe anything.


Do your research before you post such tripe again.


and the left wind doesnt? PLEASE... MAN can not destroy the planet... as whole... we destroy each other and living things... but the sun will rise tomorrow the stars will light up at night... the planets will align themselfs throught MAN KIND... whether we survive is the issue not whether earth will survive...


R


why the name callin dude? :wink: :lol:
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Behshad » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:32 am

Image
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby StevePerryHair » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:34 am

Behshad wrote:Image


:lol: :lol:
User avatar
StevePerryHair
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8504
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Mickey's World

Postby Rick » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:42 am

Fact Finder wrote:HOUSTON MAY SEE 'EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER'

:lol:


We already had one in the Dallas area. It's supposed to be in the upper 20's tonight. Someone call Gore, I want Global Warming back! :lol:
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby portland » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:27 pm

Rick wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:HOUSTON MAY SEE 'EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER'

:lol:


We already had one in the Dallas area. It's supposed to be in the upper 20's tonight. Someone call Gore, I want Global Warming back! :lol:





66 degrees in Maine today...shorts and a tank top on my run!!!! love December in Maine!!!!!
What's left After You Fall?.....A Cover Band?
portland
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7457
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:57 am
Location: Maine

Postby Rick » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:33 pm

portland wrote:
Rick wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:HOUSTON MAY SEE 'EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER'

:lol:


We already had one in the Dallas area. It's supposed to be in the upper 20's tonight. Someone call Gore, I want Global Warming back! :lol:





66 degrees in Maine today...shorts and a tank top on my run!!!! love December in Maine!!!!!


Somehow, that is just wrong. I was in the bucket of a deicing truck washing the snow off of airplanes yesterday. :lol:
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby portland » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:45 pm

Rick wrote:
portland wrote:
Rick wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:HOUSTON MAY SEE 'EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER'

:lol:


We already had one in the Dallas area. It's supposed to be in the upper 20's tonight. Someone call Gore, I want Global Warming back! :lol:





66 degrees in Maine today...shorts and a tank top on my run!!!! love December in Maine!!!!!


Somehow, that is just wrong. I was in the bucket of a deicing truck washing the snow off of airplanes yesterday. :lol:




Sorry!!!! it was like June here!!!
What's left After You Fall?.....A Cover Band?
portland
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7457
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:57 am
Location: Maine

Postby Sarah » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:52 pm

portland wrote:66 degrees in Maine today...shorts and a tank top on my run!!!! love December in Maine!!!!!

What the fuck, I would be dying

I love you, California.
Sarah
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:34 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby hoagiepete » Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:33 am

If it were 85 in Maine and not snowing in Houston, the media and enviro's would be jumping on it as f'n global warming...see?? see??? global warming.

Snow in Houston...nary a word. (not saying it is global cooling...just pointing how fucked up journalists have become) Just like the major hurricanes global warming was going to cause...that didn't happen. oooopsss :oops: :oops: :oops: Hmmm didn't read much about that bone head prediction not coming true.
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby Saint John » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:28 am

Sarah wrote:
portland wrote:66 degrees in Maine today...shorts and a tank top on my run!!!! love December in Maine!!!!!

What the fuck, I would be dying

I love you, California.


lol...at least the people of California will be warm in the unemployment lines.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby RedWingFan » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:34 am

Fact Finder wrote:Image

:lol:
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby steveo777 » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:32 am

The only thing good about the upcoming climate summit is you can get laid for free, if so inclined. Apparently the hookers are going to service the hotel guests for free that week. :lol:
User avatar
steveo777
MP3
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Citrus Heights, Ca

Postby Monker » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:50 am

Fact Finder wrote:
‘... science doesn’t work like that. If you “really, really wish for it, it will come true” is not Newton’s fourth law of gravity...”


“Many years ago, this was a thriving, happy planet - people, cities, shops, a normal world. Except that on the high streets of these cities there were slightly more cars than one might have thought necessary. And slowly, insidiously, the numbers of these cars were increasing. It’s a well known economic phenomenon but tragic to see it in operation, for the more cars there were, the more cars they had to make and the bigger, environmentally worse and economically unbearable they became. And the harder they were to buy and use, the more people had to buy to keep themselves mobile, and the more the cars proliferated until the whole economy of the place passed what I believe is the termed the Car Event Horizon, and it became no longer economically possible to build anything other than cars. Result - collapse, ruin and famine. Most of the population died out. Those few who had the right kind of genetic instability mutated into fish - who cursed their legs, cursed ground transport, and vowed that none should drive on it again. Unhappy lot.”

Modified - using cars instead of shoes - from "The Restaurant at the end of the universe"
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby artist4perry » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:49 am

Fact Finder wrote:artist4perry, the bolded part is for your enjoyment. :wink:



December 03, 2009

Climate Challenges

By Rep. John Linder

For the last several years, when people have instructed me that human activity was causing a dangerous increase in global temperatures, my response has been, "Then tell me, what should the temperature be?" Should it be the temperatures that the planet experienced a thousand years ago, during which Greenland was settled as a farming community and during which wine grapes were grown in Scotland? Should it be the temperatures of three hundred years ago, when the Little Ice Age ended the inhabitation of Greenland and the Thames iced over? Should it be the temperatures of 829 A.D., when the Nile River froze? No response!


We are told, based on computer models, that human beings burning fossil fuels -- and exhaling -- is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This, in turn, is trapping heat, which is responsible for the modest temperature increase between 1976 and 1998. The conclusion is that we must alter our entire lifestyles to avoid a planetary catastrophe.


For computer models to be accurate, inputs must include all of the factors that can impact climate. Knowing this, as well as believing it likely that the majority of factors that do impact climate are yet unknown, how can we trust the models?


To begin with, CO2 is not driving temperature as claimed. We know from core samples taken from the Vostok glacier in Antarctica that while CO2 and temperatures do increase and decrease in consonance, the temperature changes precede the CO2 changes by about a thousand years.


We currently have about 388 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere by volume. That is at the lower end of the historical comfort scale. The most fertile time that our planet has ever seen was during the Cambrian Period, about 542 million years ago. In a very short period of time, all of multicellular life that has ever existed was deposited into the fossil record. That occurred because the planet was warm. The CO2 level in the atmosphere was twenty times higher then than it is today. The entire planet was green with growth, and oxygen levels were unusually high.


Likewise, during the period of dinosaur dominance, CO2 levels were five times higher than today, enabling the planet to grow enough greenery to keep those giant animals alive.


Even today, the most diverse part of our planet in both plant and animal life is around the equator -- the warmest area of the globe.


We are told that the calving of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula is proof that the world's largest ice pack, which comprises about 90% of the globe's ice, is melting. The Antarctic Peninsula constitutes 2% of the continent. The other 98% of the continent has been growing by about 27 gigatons of ice per year. This comes not from computer models, but from thirty years' worth of satellite measurements. Those same empirical observations show that the concentration of sea ice surrounding Antarctica is at a record high.


What's more, every computer model shows that greenhouse warming is associated with a "hot spot" located four to six miles above the equator. We have been monitoring that very spot for fifty years. It doesn't exist. Thus, whatever warming we see is unlikely to be due to the greenhouse effect as the models explain it.


We are told that the melting of arctic ice is endangering the future of polar bears. There were five thousand polar bears fifty years ago. There are twenty-five thousand today. This does not seem like extinction to me. Additionally, Captain Roald Amundsen of Norway explored that entire region in 1905, sailing through the North-West Passage in a sailboat! Today, there is usually ice blocking his route.


In his movie An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore says that sea levels will rise by twenty feet in the next century, putting much of the world's oceanfront land and islands at risk. Real science tells us that the last glaciation ended about 11,000 years ago. Oceans have risen since then by about four feet per century. In the 20th century, sea levels rose by about eight inches. Indeed, Dr. Nils-Axel Moerner from the University of Stockholm, who has written 520 peer-reviewed articles on sea levels and is considered a world authority, recently declared that sea levels have been unchanged for the last three years.


Years ago, Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, theorized that higher temperatures over the equator caused the cirrus clouds to disappear and venting heat up over the atmosphere. That theory is now a proven fact, quantified by NASA. It begins when the surface temperature of the ocean exceeds 28 degrees centigrade. This fact is not considered on the computer models.


This is what this whole discussion comes down to. In science, only two conditions exist. One is theory, and the other is fact. The entire notion of human-caused global warming is a theory based on computer models. None of it has been proven through rigorous empirical observation to be a fact.


On December 7, 2009, President Obama will send a delegation to Copenhagen, Denmark, for the U.N. Climate Conference. So what exactly is the goal of this conference? A few months ago, Al Gore explained the ultimate goal: global governance. If the climate alarmists get their way, the U.S. economy would be subject to the whims of a U.N.-led climate government, unaccountable to American taxpayers but most certainly using American taxpayer funds to operate. Since so many countries are happy to blame the U.S. for the vast majority of what they amusingly claim is a catastrophic slide into global devastation, I am sure that a new U.N. Climate Government will be all too eager to call on the American taxpayer to foot the bill. In fact, the two-hundred-page draft document says just that. We will be billed by an unelected bureaucracy for our "climate debt." And we will yield our sovereignty to international law.


I noted earlier that this has been a discussion. Unfortunately, it has not been a debate. The alarmists refuse to debate; they say that the science is settled. Nonsense! There is no such thing as settled scientific theory -- only settled scientists. If Al Gore believes his science is settled, he should agree to debate and prove the skeptics wrong. Yet he has been running from debate for years.


To those who ask who would be hurt if we were wrong about CO2 and reduced the amount in the atmosphere, I say only the 1.6 billion most vulnerable people in the world. They are desperate for more CO2 so they can grow food. Their lives are brutal and short. They desperately need what we have enjoyed over the past hundred years.


Over the last two million years, this planet has experienced about twenty glaciations. They last about a hundred thousand years, and they are interrupted by warming periods of about ten thousand years. It has been about eleven thousand years since the last glaciation ended. During the last century, we saw one of the longest periods of high solar activity since the last glaciation. Temperatures rose. We have seen less sun activity in the last eleven years than we have seen for a very long time. The temperature has also been either steady or declining for eleven years. (By the way, not one of the computer models, which so confidently predict what will happen in one hundred years, predicted that cooling.) Let us pray that all this is not a signal of the next glaciation -- one that actually kills people.


There is no need for any climate treaty at Copenhagen. It is time to disband the U.N.'s self-serving and serially dishonest climate panel. Officially sponsored environmental extremism is a danger to our national security.


Representative John Linder (R-GA) sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Waxman-Markey bill, jurisdiction over the Boxer-Kerry bill should it pass in the Senate, and authority over all carbon taxes generally.



Yes, the whole it is true because I want to believe it does not make it a scientific FACT. Study what makes up a theory or a scientific fact. Even professional "scientist" seem to forget this. And everything should be questioned in science.........otherwise it is not science.......just propaganda. :wink:
User avatar
artist4perry
MP3
 
Posts: 10462
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:42 am
Location: Running around in the vast universe that is my imagination. Send help!

Postby 7 Wishes » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:04 am

Fart Finder, your party specializes in misinformation. You are at it again.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby Jana » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:10 am

"Science of global warming not faked, inquiry decides

By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, AP

Sunday, 13 December 2009
Emails stolen from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia show they stonewalled sceptics and discussed hiding data. But the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, an exhaustive review by the Associated Press has found.

The 1,073 emails examined show that scientists harboured private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. But the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing that the world is warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message.

The emails were stolen from the computer network server of the UEA climate research unit, and posted online last month. The AP studied all the emails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them – about a million words in total. Summaries of the emails were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy. "This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Daniel Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University.

One email that sceptics have been citing is from Phil Jones, the unit's head. He says: "I've just completed Mike's [Mann] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Mr Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined. The "trick" that Mr Jones said he was borrowing from Mr Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which were misleading, Mr Mann explained."
Jana
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8227
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Anticipating

Postby artist4perry » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:39 am

Hey, mainly what I am saying and I still hold to be true. Scientific theory is just theory. But what pisses me off is the whole mindset of "if it is a theory we must treat it as a fact". I have no problem with them looking into the theory, but till it is proven fact it should not be held to that status. Say the world is warming...........but what prevents it from cooling 3 years from now? Can the world just be going through cycles of temperature?

Protect the planet by common sense, and conservation. Leave things in nature looking good, pick up the trash. Walk when you can, it will trim the waist line and make you healthier. Don't waste water or resources. Simple folks. We learned it in school. :wink: :D
User avatar
artist4perry
MP3
 
Posts: 10462
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:42 am
Location: Running around in the vast universe that is my imagination. Send help!

Postby separate_wayz » Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:51 pm

I'm amazed throughout the global warming argument / debate how little credit astronomical causes are given for changes in Earth temperatures. Four major recurring cycles easily account for a majority of long-term variation in Earth temperatures and glacial progression:

1. Solar variability (11-year cycles, and 206-year cycles)
2. Tilt and elliptical orbit around the sun (procession of the equinoxes, an 11,000-year cycle)
3. Wobble and tilt in the Earth's orbit (a 41,000-year cycle)
4. Cycle of eccentricity (variations in the shape of the Earth's orbit, a 100,000-year cycle)

Check out this graph, that nicely illustrates the incredibly short episodes of interglacial warming periods (the Eemian Interglacial and the Present Interglacial) in between a well-described "siege of ice" over the last 160,000 years.


Image
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby Lula » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:15 am

Jana wrote:"Science of global warming not faked, inquiry decides

By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, AP

Sunday, 13 December 2009
Emails stolen from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia show they stonewalled sceptics and discussed hiding data. But the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, an exhaustive review by the Associated Press has found.

The 1,073 emails examined show that scientists harboured private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. But the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing that the world is warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message.

The emails were stolen from the computer network server of the UEA climate research unit, and posted online last month. The AP studied all the emails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them – about a million words in total. Summaries of the emails were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy. "This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Daniel Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University.

One email that sceptics have been citing is from Phil Jones, the unit's head. He says: "I've just completed Mike's [Mann] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Mr Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined. The "trick" that Mr Jones said he was borrowing from Mr Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which were misleading, Mr Mann explained."


huh? so there is doubt about the doubt? :lol:
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Rockindeano » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:25 am

LOL at Quote Finder. You alone must use up more bandwidth with your conservative columns copying/pasting than everyone else here combined. I have never read one original post from you.

You are a terrible poster, absolutely dreadful. Like dog shit. Seriously, you bring nothing to the argument that cannot be seen on Fox News.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby gr8dane » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:02 am

Rockindeano wrote:LOL at Quote Finder. You alone must use up more bandwidth with your conservative columns copying/pasting than everyone else here combined. I have never read one original post from you.

You are a terrible poster, absolutely dreadful. Like dog shit. Seriously, you bring nothing to the argument that cannot be seen on Fox News.


He is obviously on commission.
Jesus loves you ,but everybody else thinks you're a knob.
User avatar
gr8dane
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: Zoltar 7

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:07 am

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.


8 ) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18 ) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28 ) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38 ) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48 ) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58 ) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68 ) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78 ) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88 ) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98 ) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Michigan Girl » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:25 am

Jesse Ventura~Conspiracy Theory... Wednesdays 10PM EPT
WHAT IS CONSPIRACY THEORY WITH JESSE VENTURA?
Jesse Ventura and a team of expert investigators are on a mission to examine some of the most frightening and mysterious conspiracy allegations of our time. They examine available evidence as well as talking to experts and eyewitnesses to learn more about such topics as global warming, possible 9/11 cover-ups, secret government weapons and apocalyptic prophecies. "This is my personal journey," Ventura says, "to prove that there is more to these stories than you know about."Global Warming – NEW!

Premiere On: Wed, December 16 at 10P
Whether global warming is real or not, it's believed some people are using the issue to make billions of dollars, start a one-world government and control our lives, from the cars we drive to the foods we eat. Jesse Ventura starts with Al Gore and goes far beyond as he uncovers the evidence that leads to one man thought to be behind the global warming conspiracy. :wink:


http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html
Michigan Girl
MP3
 
Posts: 13963
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron